1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Please check out our two newest forums, the "Buy, Sell or Trade" (link ) forum in the Society Category, and the "Conspiracy Theories" (link) forum in our Discussion and Debate Category.

Proof against evolution

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by True_Blue, Jun 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    For those Christians who are undecided about whether evolution is true, I would like to direct your attention to a thread I started yesterday. You can read the thread as it unfolds and decide whether you believe the evidence is compelling. I am certainly convinced that the Bible is accurate with respect to the age of the Earth and the origin of life.

    http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7252587
     
  2. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Are you kidding? It's the same old creationist nonsense, beginning with the very first sentence:

    Evolution is powered by natural selection, which is a decidedly non-random force. The idea that one must choose between random chance and special creation is silly, and demonstrates a profound ignorance of evolutionary theory.

    The big bang is not part of biological evolution. It's not even remotely related.

    Abiogenesis is separate from evolution, too, but unlike the big bang, it's at least related to evolution. We know much, much less about abiogenesis than we do about biological evolution, but it is pretty safe to assume that abiogenesis involved a similar process as biological evolution. It most likely occurred through chemical self-replicators which evolved into the first proto-cells. Whatever happened, we can be sure a self-replicating cell didn't just spontaneously form, which is the absurd straw man behind those ridiculous calculations you dished out later in the post.

    Please.
     
    TheManeki likes this.
  3. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    You're quibbling over minutae, hatsoff, and it's clear you haven't spent much more than a few seconds rapidly skimming my post.
     
  4. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Having read your post, contrary to your suggestion, I'm not surprised you consider the difference between random chance and selective pressure, conflation of evolution and astro-physics, and the gradual nature of abiogenesis minutae.
     
  5. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis).

    Unless you can eliminate that 'low probability' you are left with a probability - however small. Unless you can eliminate that you cannot claim 'proof'.
     
    TheManeki likes this.
  6. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Everyone knows biological evolution is different than the Big Bang. I used "evolutionists" to mean adherents of atheists to the set of theories used to justify their beliefs. There isn't a word called "abiogenesists."

    In my view, selective pressure is perfectly synonymous with the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law is not random, so of course selective pressure is not random either. However, selective pressure is not relevant to abiogenesis except to the extent that it prevents simple compounds from forming sugars and other far more exceedingly complex organic molecules. For the analysis in my post, I eliminate this selective pressure as a favor to evolutionists.

    My post deals with attempts at making abiogenesis gradual by giving "evolutionists" a trillion trillion years for the process to occur.
     
  7. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Your post is unintelligible, because it doesn't deal with the reality of the situation, which is that we don't know what the conditions were like on earth billions of years ago. Moreover, you don't acknowledge the role of chemical self-replicators, which are of near-paramount importance when discussing abiogenesis.

    EDIT: Your numbers are unconnected, too, by the way, even assuming the premises behind them are real.
     
  8. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    If we don't know what the reality of the situation was 3 billion years ago, why does one believe abiogenesis occurred? All inquiry into the past depends on reasonable assumptions. The question is over the assumptions and the inferences that can be made from those assumptions. That requires a model to model the past, which I provided.

    I dealt with chemical self-replicators. The organic kind requires too many component parts to itself have evolved, unless you can tell me how many such components would be required.

    EDIT: Could clarify, and perhaps correct with your own calcs?
     
  9. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    We don't know the particulars, but it's fairly safe to assume that life didn't exist prior to the formation of the planet earth.

    You don't get to build a model with insufficient data.

    I don't know how the first proto-cells evolved. No one does. That doesn't mean, however, that they could not have evolved.

    Of course I can't. This whole time I've been trying to explain how such calculations are disassociated from reality! The reason you have the wrong calculations isn't that your maths are bad (although as I said they do appear to be disconnected), but because you have no evidentiary basis to perform any calculations in the first place--and neither does anyone else.
     
  10. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    The real model in question is abiogenesis itself. Since evolutionists have created the abiogenesis model or else relied on its existence (which include yourself), they and you have waived the right to protest my model showing that their model is impossible.
     
  11. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    I wouldn't call it a model. Abiogenesis amounts to idea that life formed on earth, somehow, some time between 2.5-4.5 billion years ago. That's it. That's the "model." You could fill it in a little bit more, but the more you do so, the less grounded in reality the model gets.
     
  12. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    If you agree that abiogenesis isn't much of a model, then I'm in agreement. I'm not impressed with what I've seen.
     
  13. tomo0862

    tomo0862 Newbie

    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    I thought that I'd muddy up the calculations a little bit more.

    Even though it's not related to evolution, maybe we should stop calling it "THE Big Bang" and start referring to it as "The LAST Big Bang".

    How do we know that this is the only time in all of eternity that our universe is expanding. This current, speck of time, may be the most recent in oh, say, millions of times the universe has expanded after collapsing on itself. What happened before the Last Big Bang? A collapse? Before that, another Big Bang? Plug that (very real) possibility into your equation and you'll eventually end up with a 100% probability.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2008
    TheManeki likes this.
  14. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Like I said, I wouldn't even call it a model. It's not that abiogenesis didn't happen, or that it's somehow enormously problematic. Rather, we simply don't have enough information to say how it occurred.
     
  15. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    A "model" in this context is a mathematical construct something based on assumptions. It need not have data. Since neither side has data to back up their assumptions, the debate devolves to which assumptions are better. That's why I spent so much time listing all of my assumptions, and challenging people to attack the assumptions. It's disingenuous to ignore the model because of your a priori belief that abiogenesis happened because we're here.
     
  16. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    It's not an a priori belief at all, but a logical conclusion drawn from observed evidence. Life exists now. It hasn't always. Therefore, life was created at some point in the past--and by created I don't mean by an intelligent agent, or any other such nonsense.
     
  17. heavensblade23

    heavensblade23 Newbie

    Messages:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    UnitedChurchOfChrist
    Mentioning the fact that you're conflating theoretical astrophysics with evolutionary biology is not a quibble. You might as well have compared the growth patterns of lichen with an internal combustion engine.
     
  18. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    For one thing, the galaxies are moving away from our point of reference at escape velocity, meaning that they will never, ever come back to a single point of origin. Secondly, the galaxies are ACCELERATING away from us, with a force that can only be explained by the presence of God. Think about how remarkable that observation is for a moment. It absolutely blew my mind when I first learned it. The theoretical cosmological constant only measures the rate of such movement, not the underlying force. Finally, no natural process, big or small, features repeated explosions. Once the explosion takes place, it's done. (Keep in mind I'm using explosion generically, and the word is perfectly apt for the Big Bang.) Repeated explosions and reexplosions ("reexplosions" isn't even a word) are possible only in fantasy.
     
  19. Polycarp_fan

    Polycarp_fan New Member

    Messages:
    5,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    Why the need to read a thread when all I have to do is get a calculator and tap: 0 x 0 and then the equal button?

    You get the answer that atheism asserts is where everything came from.

    0 x 0 = atheism, not reality.
     
  20. hatsoff

    hatsoff Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    The big bang involves the universe coming from a singularity, not nothing. And if the big bang is wrong, then the origin of the universe is still not postulated to come from nothing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...